Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
By statute, this Board operates as a board of review.
See
35 U.S.C. § 7 ("The [board] shall . . . review adverse
decisions of examiners . . . .") For this board to properly
perform its review function, full and fair examination of the
patentability of the claims of an application must have
occurred below. This has not happened in this case. In
essence, the examiner has not presented a case which we can
meaningfully review.
4. Conclusion
We reverse the examiner’s FINAL rejection of Claims 1 and
11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Having read the Bibliography attached to each of the
Declarations of Daniel Alkon and George J. Augustine, having
considered the examiner’s record of having “searched” Class
514, subclass 561, having noted the examiner’s statement that
“[t]he claims are drawn to compounds that find themselves
classed in various and numerous parts of class 514" (Paper No.
3), having reviewed the examiner’s “Search Notes,” having
noted the examiner’s statement that “[n]o prior art are [sic]
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007